4 ms·
Uhhh... yup. Which is why I posted the section of the article that mentions low vaccine demand. In response to the implication that it doesn't.
by phonypc 5y ago
Uhhh... yup. Which is why I posted the section of the article that mentions low vaccine demand. In response to the implication that it doesn't.
- angelzen 5y agoThe fact under contention is very specific, not just general vaccine hesitancy. The article appears to fail to mention it, unless there is some other quote that can be shared beyond the paywall. More interestingly, here's an approximate heatchart of the probability that a given paragraph in an article will be read by the average reader, by the position in the article the paragraph appears: **************************** ***************** ********* **** * * . . ** There is a huge difference in attention between (free) headline & subtitle, and a (paywalled) paragraph squirreled somewhere near the end, which I am willing to bet is the case for the nyt article.
- phonypc 5y agoWhat fact is under contention? That SA has deferred vaccine deliveries? That fact is in the excerpt I posted.
- angelzen 5y agoI see. Perhaps you consider "forcing senior health officials to defer some planned deliveries" and "South Africa Asks J&J, Pfizer to Stop Sending Vaccines" are both accurately describing the same fact. I suppose we should also excuse the prominent biased subtitle, because technically they are just quoting political figures from SA, not making the charge themselves.
- phonypc 5y agoThe former is more accurate, which is to be expected seeing as it's a detail from the main body of the article rather than a headline. Thankfully, the latter article also goes into accurate detail.